Russia Says War in Iraq a Mistake and Illegal

[ShiningIce]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia called for last-minute attempts to solve the Iraq (news - web sites) crisis peacefully on Monday, saying any resort to force would be both a mistake and illegal.





Russia has aligned itself with France and Germany in calling for further U.N. arms inspections to ensure that Iraq is free of what the United States says are illegal weapons. Like France, a fellow permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, it has threatened to veto any new resolution endorsing military action.


President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites), speaking before the United States and Britain said they would no longer seek a vote for a new resolution endorsing force, said any approach other than peaceful disarmament would be a mistake.


"We would like to resolve it through political and diplomatic means," he told reporters. "I am convinced that any other solution would be a mistake."


Putin, who has made infrequent statements at home on the crisis, said war "will not only bring about human casualties but also destabilize the international community in general.


"There are 20 million Muslims living in Russia. We cannot afford not to consider their opinion and we fully share their alarm," he added.


Both Washington and Britain say military action now against Iraq would be legal.


But Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, speaking after the abandonment of Washington's bid to seek U.N. endorsement for war, said existing U.N. Security Council resolutions gave no one any legal right to launch a strike on Iraq.


"We believe the use of force against Iraq, especially with reference to previous resolutions of the U.N. Security Council, has no grounds, including legal grounds," Ivanov told reporters.


NO ENDORSEMENT FROM CURRENT RESOLUTION


Ivanov said resolution 1441 of last November, under which U.N. weapons inspections were resumed, gave no endorsement.


"Resolution 1441, to which so many references are made, does not give anyone the right to use force automatically," he said.


That resolution, approved unanimously, spoke of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with demands to disarm.


Ivanov said the resolution contained a clause obliging Security Council members, if necessary, to meet immediately to ensure Iraq's strict implementation of its terms.


There was still a chance, he said, for diplomacy to succeed.


The Foreign Ministry said no decision had been made on whether Ivanov would fly to New York to press an 11th hour case. France, Germany and Russia called at the weekend for a Tuesday meeting of ministers of Security Council members.


Georgy Mamedov, a deputy foreign minister, said Russia would do its best to minimize differences with Washington.


"Russia will not launch an anti-American campaign, but will try its utmost to return the situation to a proper legal basis," Mamedov was quoted as telling Itar-Tass news agency.

"We will not gloat over a tragic mistake by the United States or start a noisy campaign. Our relations are too important for international peace to hold them hostage to differences over the Iraq problem."

 

[Limeoutsider]

How come I think good for Russia but negativly for France?

 

[Deleted member 2452]

all 3 countries have alterior motives

russia, france, and germany have been selling banned weapons, and tehnology to the iraqi's for years, and don't want the u.s. to go in and be able to show the evidence to the world. that's silly really, cause everyone already knows about it!
russia also is owed big money by sadam, and if he's ousted, russia won't get paid, and they know it.
the legal issue is a red haerring. you can find legal justification for action in the cease fire agreement of the first gulf war. iraq has broken the treary all to hell.
steve

 

[Haltickling]

Re: all 3 countries have alterior motives

russia, france, and germany have been selling banned weapons, and tehnology to the iraqi's for years, and don't want the u.s. to go in and be able to show the evidence to the world. that's silly really, cause everyone already knows about it!

And this comes from a citizen of the nation who delivered 95% of the "banned weapons" to Iraq! From a nation that is the biggest producer of "banned weapons" by far, especially biological and chemical warfare. Have you forgotten that all of the anthrax found in those ominous letters came directly from US laboratories?

Besides, France Russia and Germany delivered solely industrial machines which are regularly used for civil purposes (for industrial fertilizer and pesticides), whereas the US delivered the weapon-ready material.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Re: Re: all 3 countries have alterior motives

And this comes from a citizen of the nation who delivered 95% of the "banned weapons" to Iraq! From a nation that is the biggest producer of "banned weapons" by far, especially biological and chemical warfare. Have you forgotten that all of the anthrax found in those ominous letters came directly from US laboratories?

Besides, France Russia and Germany delivered solely industrial machines which are regularly used for civil purposes (for industrial fertilizer and pesticides), whereas the US delivered the weapon-ready material.

the above coments comming from a citizen of the first country to use chemical weapons. and the first country to establish death camps.

yes hal the u.s. did sell chemical weapons to the iraqi's, that's why we know he's lying about not having any!

what civilian use is there in radar designed to find f-117's hal?
that same fertilizer is also used to make nerve gas, as germans well know!

steve

 

[qjakal]

% are off...a lot

Hal, the US hasn't willingly or knowingly supplied Iraq with ANY of it's current armament. The materials we DID supply in the early 80's were fairly obsolete even then, and have been supplanted by at least 2 newer generations, supplied from Russia,France and Brazil for the most part. Here's an article regarding the breakdown of Iraqs army written with the superpower of hindsight post 1991:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq's Armed Forces:

No sooner was the Gulf War over than those who had opposed it began pointing out that it "hadn't been an even match," as Bill Moyers put it. Certainly the match had been as even as Saddam Hussein had been able to make it. The Great Dictator had spent considerable time and effort in trying to lift his armed forces out of the Third World category.

Certainly Iraq’s ground forces were impressive. There were 900,000 troops organized into approximately 60 regular and eight Republican Guard divisions.[8] There were 5,700 tanks, 5,000 armored vehicles such as personnel carriers, and 5,000 other support vehicles. There were 3,700 artillery pieces, many of them self-propelled, including Soviet and Brazilian multiple rocket launchers. There were 160 armed helicopters and gunships, including Mi-8s and Mi-24s such as the Soviets had used in Afghanistan. The ground forces had been tested and tempered in the course of years of combat with the Iranians.

The air forces as well were edging out of the Third World category. The mark of the Third World is that while a country may possess some highly sophisticated equipment, it is bought from someone else who did the development and is often responsible for the maintenance. The Iraqi Air Force had 750 fighter, bomber and armed trainer aircraft, with 200 support aircraft. Much of its equipment was quite sophisticated, to include an Iraqi-built airborne early warning aircraft based on the Soviet Il-76 CANDID transport. The inventory also included the MiG-29, the MiG-27, the MiG-25, the Su-24, all Soviet-built; and the French Mirage F-1.

Third World inventories are also usually limited to fighter and interceptor aircraft. But the Iraqis also possessed the Tu-16 and Tu-22 bombers — unusual in a Third World arsenal. There were 24 main operating bases and 30 dispersal bases, with nuclear-hardened shelters and multiple taxiways and runways.

Despite this numerical and technological strength, the Iraqi air force made a poor showing in the Iran-Iraq war. Any air force possesses the potential to carry out a coup d'etat, since it can destroy the national leadership by air attack. To ensure against this, Saddam's regime either consciously or unconsciously held down the capabilities of the air force's pilots and crews. They were given plush accomodations and luxury cars, they were well-paid, but they were not allowed enough flight time to become really skilled.

It was partly this fear of overthrow from the air that caused Saddam to build a complex of heavily reinforced, deeply buried bunkers to protect himself, his senior officials, and the Republican Guard command structure. This had the side effect of allowing them as well to live through the Coalition's air attacks when they eventually came.

Hard shelters had been built in large numbers to shield Iraq's aircraft against surprise attack. Many had a blast wall in front of their entrance, which could provide useful protection. It also blocked the entrance so the planes could not scramble. Indeed, in the event of a coup attempt by the air force, a tank could destroy the plane in its shelter long before it could be laboriously dragged out. By way of contrast, NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries both avoided any obstructions to quick take-off. Perhaps their air forces were more trustworthy.

Iraq had patterned its air defenses on standard Soviet practice: a redundant, "layered" system that blended radars, hardened and buried command and control facilities, surface-to-air missiles, interceptor aircraft, and antiaircraft artillery. There were 16,000 radar-guided and heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles. These ranged from the shoulder-fired SA-7 and SA-14, and the SA-2 and SA-3 that had been faced by American pilots in Vietnam, to much newer and more capable equipment. When the war began the defenses of Baghdad were denser than the most heavily defended Eastern European target at the height of the Cold War. They were seven times as dense as Hanoi's defenses had been before Linebacker II in 1972.

During the 1980s Iraq had devoted considerable effort toward developing weapons of mass destruction. While conventional weapons are quite capable of destroying significant numbers of people, "weapons of mass destruction" are a distinct sub-category of armament: those with nuclear, biological or chemical capabilities. There was an aggressive program in effect to illegally purchase critical materials for all three types of weapons from abroad, including from companies in the United States.[9] The chemical weapons program produced sufficient quantities of lethal gas to allow the Iraqis to use it liberally against the Iranians in their war. Subsequently it was used against Iraq's Kurdish population in particularly brutal and wanton attacks. At the time the war began, Iraq had the dubious distinction of being the only nation to use poison gas on the battlefield since 1918. Its gassing of the Kurds remains the only documented instance of a regime systematically and intentionally gassing its citizens since the Nazi atrocities of the Second World War.

If one will have weapons of mass destruction, so also must one have the means of their delivery. Iraq had approximately 1,200 SCUD and SCUD-derivative missiles, to include the locally modified or manufactured al-Hussein and al-Abbas. On a more exotic plane, Iraq had contracts with foreign firms to develop such items of passing interest as electronic detonators suitable for nuclear weapons and a large-bore hypervelocity long-range cannon. Saddam Hussein's childhood love of guns had developed into a full-scale love affair with weaponry of all sorts.



The Soviet Union had more than just a patron-client relationship with the regime in Iraq; there was a heavy investment in prestige as well. Not only was the country heavily armed with Soviet equipment, but a good part of the officer corps had been trained in the Soviet Union. Much of Soviet military doctrine had been adapted to the Iraqis’ own situation. The Gulf War was in that respect a conflict between two competing schools of military thought. The Soviet school lost.

Actually, Soviet doctrine received an unfair beating. War with the Soviets, had it come, would have been an entirely different matter from war with Iraq. The terrain in Europe — the likely scene of any war between the two superpowers — is different from that of the Persian Gulf. Export equipment was not the same as that kept for use by the Soviet Army; the T-72, for instance, had been used by the East Germans, while the Soviets had used the more sophisticated T-64 and later the T-80 in the forward area. Most importantly, the Soviets trained and maintained a dedicated, professional military cadre that would not have abandoned the field without a fight.

Iraq being Iraq, the selection of those officers who were sent to study in the Soviet Union’s system of higher military schools was based not so much on merit as on a combination of nepotism and reliability. Given the luck of the draw, Uncle Abdullah’s nephew was just as likely to spend his time in Leningrad developing a taste for vodka and chasing slavic blondes as he was in studying the Battle of Kursk or the proper depth of sector for an tank division in a meeting engagement. Even if he did devote the time and effort to achieving proficiency in military matters, over-successful officers in Iraq had a distressing habit of becoming involved in fatal helicopter crashes and similar unfortunate accidents. When living under a cult of personality, it is unwise to show too much personality of one’s own.

Tipping the scales against a close adherence to the Soviet model, the Iraqi army was conditioned by its long and grueling war with Iran. This was a war in which the main threat had come from frontal human wave attacks, rather than a war of thought and maneuver. The Iranians, with few exceptions, had not fielded a modern, professional army, just a big, fanatical one. At the beginning of the war the mullahs had in fact been in the process of destroying the well-trained Iranian officers’ corps and replacing it with their own cadres. Combat simply provided another method of disposing of the religiously unreliable. The end result was an officers’ corps not even up to the same par as the Iraqis’, and a war in which large quantities of men and materiel were needlessly sacrificed by both sides. It was in many ways a replay of World War I.

Iraq's army was divided into three parts. The model for this was not so much the Soviet model as the German, as applied during the Second World War. At the top end of the lineup was the Republican Guard, nine divisions which were equipped with the highest quality, most sophisticated armament the Ba'ath regime could lay hands on. Better paid, fed and led than the rest of the army, the Republican Guard troops were picked for their loyalty to the regime. They would correspond to Hitler's SS, with overtones of the Soviets' NKVD divisions. Their functions included internal security, and, while they were not the "elite" units the western press tried to make them out to be, they were the best the Iraqis had to offer.

Corresponding to the Wehrmacht, the Iraqi regular army was thoroughly mechanized and was fairly well trained and led. There were about nine of these divisions in the Kuwait sector at the start of Desert Storm, three of them deployed with the Republican Guard and the remaining six intended to be used as the main striking force in their respective corps sectors.

The bulk of Iraq's strength in Kuwait was to be found in the People's Army, corresponding to Hitler's SA — which had not been used as a fighting force in Germany's war, with good reason. The People's Army was made up of poorly trained conscripts, relatively lightly armed. Its primary function was to act as cannon fodder, slowing down the Coalition advance, bogging it down and inflicting casualties as it could, setting the attackers up for a decisive counterblow by the regular army units. Once the attackers had been dealt with in this manner, the regular units could disengage and the heavily armored shock troops of the Republican Guard, the strategic reserve, could counterattack.

All of this looked very well in theory. It is in fact an adaptation, perhaps twice removed, of Soviet doctrine. The problem lay with the quality of troops making up the People's Army, their expectations of combat, and with the tensions built in among the three levels of units.

The most important thing an army does is train. The higher the quality of a force, the more time it spends either training in the field or preparing to go to the field to train. Modern warfare is an intricate process, with literally hundreds of factors each dependent upon the other. Simply moving a force from one place to another is an evolution that has to be practiced time and time again. To simply call up large numbers of men, give them guns and uniforms and send them to fight is effectively to destroy them. Without training, they are simply a large number of people, perhaps dangerous on an individual level, but of no real consequence as a military force. The trained force wins every time, unless submerged by sheer weight of numbers.

At the same time, the establishment of a pecking order among the three types of ground forces units had the effect of undermining morale. The regular army could be expected to be as jealous of the Republican Guard's usurpation of its functions as was the Wehrmacht of the SS. The People's Army, at the bottom of the heap, with the least desirable and least effective equipment, leadership and training, could hardly even be expected to regard itself as a fighting force. The Ba'ath thus managed to undermine force cohesiveness, a situation aggravated by the purely political requirements of disposing of officers who became too popular — or too successful.

Finally, the People's Army's expectation was that it was going to take heavy casualties. That was its function. It is much easier for a man in an air conditioned office wearing a clean, pressed uniform, to decide another man should die an heroic death at the front than it is for the man at the front to actually do it. By taking away the legitimate avenue to self-preservation, the regime left open only the illegitimate avenue: token resistance (if any) followed by either withdrawal or surrender, with the expectation that the heavier armed, more effective units of the regular army would pick up the slack.

Once the People's Army broke, the panic was to spread quickly. Panic is a contagious disease on the battlefield. The bulk of the Iraqi force was concentrated in the People's Army units, with only six regular divisions available for a counterblow; infected by the panic, and by the knowledge of their own inadequacy in the face of overwhelming force, they would melt nearly as quickly and thoroughly as the farm boys and factory workers of the People's Army. That would leave the Republican Guard exposed, with effectively no screening force at all.



[8]The U.S. by contrast maintained at the time about fifteen active divisions, though its organizational principles were quite different.

[9]When Israel had staged an air raid to destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons-grade fissionable material she had been bitterly criticized.

------------------------------------------------------------

Most of their current "re-arming" is rumored to be of European origins, but we'll have to wait for a post conflict analysis to determine the % of resources per country. If I get any inside information I'll post it, but the only way to factually determine these things is through observation and records, which I don't think will be happening until the dust settles.... Q

 

[Haltickling]

That may be an impressive article, Q, when you look for a strategic and tactical analysis for the first Gulf war. Even though, it conveniently omits facts, like the use of chemical weapons by US (Agent Orange, Napalm) during the Vietnam war (it claims that Saddam was the first nation to use those weapons since 1918).

Fact is: USA delivered the original biological and chemical weapons to Iraq. Another fact is that it's quite easy to reproduce them at whim, once a dedicated scientist gets access to a sample. Fact is further that it's even easier to reproduce the biological weapons once you get hold of the original bacteriae stems. So who is responsible for the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq? You're not questioning the cause-and-effect principle, I hope!

If the attacking US forces should ever find any of those weapons, do you think they will reveal truthfully where those weapons originally came from? Oh, they will produce some "evidence", probably of the same "quality" as Powell's evidence to the UN security council... 🙄 The first victim in every war is the truth! And: A war never reveals who was right, it only determines who is left to SAY they were right.

To areenactor: I don't think that a radar device of doubtful origin can be considered a weapon on mass destruction. And fertilizers/pesticides were definitely not on the list of "banned weapons". You probably have this information from the same questionable source which accused Germany of delivering nerve gas to North Korea. You never backed up this allegation (slander) with hard facts; instead you chose to "forget" to provide more information on your source, when I was inquiring more closely for the purpose of verifying your information. Not very credible, I must say!

 

[qjakal]

Clean hands...

Nope...wasn't trying to downplay the US role in the overall mess, just clarify a misconception floating around about WHO is arming Iraq in the last few decades. Mistakes have been made, due to either miscalculations, greed or a lack of foresight. More may indeed be made, but inaction is, imo, the biggest one of all. Still have my fingers crossed that Saddam and family will exile themselves(along with the standard few billion dollars, of course) when push comes to shove. Lot of lives could be saved as well as infrastructure, but intelligence reports don't seem to think he'll do the "smart" thing. Instead he'll likely burrow in and be the catalyst for a lot of wasteful destruction that we'll then rebuild...sigh...it's a bad cycle. Q

 

[Deleted member 2452]

That may be an impressive article, Q, when you look for a strategic and tactical analysis for the first Gulf war. Even though, it conveniently omits facts, like the use of chemical weapons by US (Agent Orange, Napalm) during the Vietnam war (it claims that Saddam was the first nation to use those weapons since 1918).

Fact is: USA delivered the original biological and chemical weapons to Iraq. Another fact is that it's quite easy to reproduce them at whim, once a dedicated scientist gets access to a sample. Fact is further that it's even easier to reproduce the biological weapons once you get hold of the original bacteriae stems. So who is responsible for the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq? You're not questioning the cause-and-effect principle, I hope!

If the attacking US forces should ever find any of those weapons, do you think they will reveal truthfully where those weapons originally came from? Oh, they will produce some "evidence", probably of the same "quality" as Powell's evidence to the UN security council... 🙄 The first victim in every war is the truth! And: A war never reveals who was right, it only determines who is left to SAY they were right.

To areenactor: I don't think that a radar device of doubtful origin can be considered a weapon on mass destruction. And fertilizers/pesticides were definitely not on the list of "banned weapons". You probably have this information from the same questionable source which accused Germany of delivering nerve gas to North Korea. You never backed up this allegation (slander) with hard facts; instead you chose to "forget" to provide more information on your source, when I was inquiring more closely for the purpose of verifying your information. Not very credible, I must say!

some more "facts" for hal. germany was the first country to use flame throwers in combat (so much for your crying about napalm).
agent orange was a herbicide, and it's affects on humans was unkown at the time of it's use, unlike zerkon b, that your countrymen used during the 40's.
why should i provide you with anything, sir (spelt cur)?
i reported what i heard on the radio, that's where my obligation ends, and your's begins if you want to dispute the report!
the radar system in question is a banned system to the iraqis! and reports are that it has been supplied to them by the french. further reports are that the french system is not as good as was first feared.
steve

 

[Haltickling]

why should i provide you with anything, sir (spelt cur)?
i reported what i heard on the radio, that's where my obligation ends, and your's begins if you want to dispute the report!

1) Because you promised to do so when I asked.
2) You're plain wrong. If I accused you of beeing a queer, it wouldn't be your responsibility to prove I'm wrong. It would be my obligation to prove my allegation, or you could sue me, and rightly so. The same goes if I "had heard it on the radio", and "reported" to the public.

You're just not worth any further discussion for me. End of message.

 

[JoBelle]

Just curious ...
A question for those among us, like me, that aren't as well versed as a few of you in the factual history on either side.

Seems Germany (along w/others) is well versed in American thoughts, either becuase it's shoved down their thorats or they want to know it. Either way, I don't really care the whys....however, it does leave Americans at a disadvantage in that our news of other countries beyond major political changes often comes only when we seek out the information via online news sources, etc. That being said....

What is Germany saying specifically about the history of Iraq's current stockpile of weapons?

Do they blame the USA alone, or do they feel that they, along with other countries, bear some responsibility?

What is the view of the average American citizen who just wants to protect his or her children? Yes, some feel like removing the madman, Saddam, from his place is helping to do just that.

What does Germany feel is an appropriate response since apparently it's disapproving of what is happening? There has to be something besides "time" as the answer. Wasn't twelve years enough? Or should we wait 12 more?

Why do you, as Germans, feel that France is so adamantly opposed to the US stepping foot in Iraq?

Would Germany be so opposed to such action as they have stated thuis far, are they indicating the desire to have American troops removed from their homeland?

How can the country justify the American presense in their country while openly opposing the actions of those very people?

I know we have 2 resident Germans here who can give a little insight.

Is there any hope that TMF members can say, "I love my home, so don't treat me like a scoundrel for it?" I'm genuinely curious about how our German ticklefriends are viewing this moment in time. It's obviously different than the American view....and that goes beyond what the world sees as a stereotypical American. By that I mean that we aren't all straight whire men over 60 with bad hair and so much money that we forgot what it means to work for a better life. Care to share? Anyone? Anyone?

Joby

 

[Krokus]

...

Jesus, who cares? I can't wait for this to be over....thankfully, it's about to begin.

 

[ShiningIce]

We can only pray for an act of God.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

1) Because you promised to do so when I asked.
2) You're plain wrong. If I accused you of beeing a queer, it wouldn't be your responsibility to prove I'm wrong. It would be my obligation to prove my allegation, or you could sue me, and rightly so. The same goes if I "had heard it on the radio", and "reported" to the public.

You're just not worth any further discussion for me. End of message.

1) and i did.
2) nope i was right! i called abc radio news dept. and asked if i was crazy, or did i hear a story about germany selling cyanide to north korea? they said no, you're not crazy, the story is true. they offered to send me a transcript of it, for a fee of course, i declined.
my what does you wanting me to be queer have to do with anything? unless you really like me?
i could only hope you are done with me, i'll go ring the bells now!
steve

 

[Haltickling]

Why most of Europe is against this war

Just curious ...
A question for those among us, like me, that aren't as well versed as a few of you in the factual history on either side.

Seems Germany (along w/others) is well versed in American thoughts, either becuase it's shoved down their thorats or they want to know it. Either way, I don't really care the whys....however, it does leave Americans at a disadvantage in that our news of other countries beyond major political changes often comes only when we seek out the information via online news sources, etc. That being said....

What is Germany saying specifically about the history of Iraq's current stockpile of weapons?

Do they blame the USA alone, or do they feel that they, along with other countries, bear some responsibility?

What is the view of the average American citizen who just wants to protect his or her children? Yes, some feel like removing the madman, Saddam, from his place is helping to do just that.

What does Germany feel is an appropriate response since apparently it's disapproving of what is happening? There has to be something besides "time" as the answer. Wasn't twelve years enough? Or should we wait 12 more?

Why do you, as Germans, feel that France is so adamantly opposed to the US stepping foot in Iraq?

Would Germany be so opposed to such action as they have stated thuis far, are they indicating the desire to have American troops removed from their homeland?

How can the country justify the American presense in their country while openly opposing the actions of those very people?

I know we have 2 resident Germans here who can give a little insight.

Is there any hope that TMF members can say, "I love my home, so don't treat me like a scoundrel for it?" I'm genuinely curious about how our German ticklefriends are viewing this moment in time. It's obviously different than the American view....and that goes beyond what the world sees as a stereotypical American. By that I mean that we aren't all straight whire men over 60 with bad hair and so much money that we forgot what it means to work for a better life. Care to share? Anyone? Anyone?

Joby

Joby, thanks for your questions. As I know you dislike your posts being dissected part by part, I’ll try to answer them in a block.

First of all, I think you’re right about the discrepancy of information between Europe and America. It is a fact that the average American is much less interested in world politics, compared to, let’s say, the average German. Both get access to the same information, but American media rarely touch these issues, and whenever they are presented, they are accompanied by a US commentary. German and French newspapers are full of world politics, and American politics is rather important to us.

I obviously can’t speak for all Germans, so I’ll try to cover the so-called “public opinion” here. It’s not only a German or French public opinion. I read (online) regularly and quite frequently up to 12 different newspapers in 5 different languages from 8 different countries. We have Europe-channel with 24/7 news from all over Europe, fed by different broadcasting stations, and we can watch CNN on cable TV. Apart from this, I have personal e-mail contacts in Britain, France, Austria, and Australia. So my sources of information are quite versatile.

Iraq’s stockpile of weapons used to be predominantly American, as the US strongly supported Saddam during the war with Iran. Later, USA stopped the delivery of such weapons, and Saddam had to look for other sources. That was still during the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union, so it was quite natural for Russia to deliver the older surplus tanks etc.

After Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, the situation changed dramatically with the UN embargo. The previously established economical ties (and therefore influence) were cut off. Some German and French companies delivered industrial goods (not weapons!) which were on the blacklist, but they were discovered and the responsible managers were sentenced to jail.

Saddam’s present stockpile of weapons is a wild mixture of old American, Russian, and French material, plus several self-produced imitations of such weapons (the Al-Husseini, As-Samud, and Scud missiles were built after Russian blueprints), including a lot of black-market weapons from embargo-breakers. However, the chemical and biological weapons were copied from the original US deliveries. As I said before, they’re quite easy to reproduce once you can lay hand on a working sample.

The average American civilian is much less threatened by this arsenal than Saddam’s own people. And it’s currently much easier for terrorists to get hold of dangerous material from the desolate Russian Army than from Iraq. Saddam is strongly opposed to a fundamentalist Islamic state, and Al-Qaeda is anathema to him just like the Shiite mullahs.

In the past few months, great pressure was exerted on the CIA to provide some hard evidence for the existence of MDW, and for Saddam’s connections with the Al-Qaeda terrorists. Despite strong efforts, the CIA was unable to find anything. So Mr. Cheney, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Bush construed their own task force, consisting of Public Relation managers, marketing people, and specialists from the Psychological Warfare department, to “produce” a unique media campaign as a replacement for hard evidence. Its effect was tremendous: It raised the pro-war polls from a meager 30% to almost 70% of the American population, without any real information, just playing on the Americans’ fear and relating it to 9/11.

The removal of Saddam will quite certainly have effects on the Middle East region (not sure if stabilizing or radicalizing), but it will not make American (or European) civilians safer. That’s the opinion of an estimated 70-80% of the European population who were not affected by the US propaganda campaign. Most Europeans fear a tremendously increased wave of fundamental Islamic terrorism as a result of a war, and the glorification of Saddam Hussein as a “martyr”.

Germany is strongly opposed to any kind of attack war, it’s a lesson we learnt from our history, and it’s part of our constitution. The use of military force can only be legitimated for defensive purposes. Iraq didn’t threaten or attack USA or Europe, and in our opinion the USA failed to provide any contradicting evidence. So the USA is the aggressor in this war.

We feel that the only legitimate approach to the problem is diplomatic and economic pressure. Germany would certainly have approved UN resolution 1441 if it had been a member of the security counsel then. France and Russia have approved. But resolution 1441 doesn’t legitimate a military attack without further UN approval, it doesn’t cover a regime change by outside force, and it most certainly doesn’t justify Mr. Bush’s unilateral goal to “establish a new world order”. The intent of the present American administration seems to be establishing a world order where every other nation would simply have to obey American orders. Either do what USA wants, or face severe consequences (including military preemptive strikes). That’s unacceptable for any sovereign nation.

Moreover, the Bush administration has treated the rest of the world like so much chaff since it came into office. The exit of the Kyoto declaration, the non-acceptance of an international UN court for war crimes, the negation of WTO agreements (steel import restriction), and a bunch of other violations of previous agreements. Since Bush, America is driving towards isolationism and hegemony. International cooperation is seen as an important progress in a peaceful civilization. The present American policy is considered a distinct step back to Neanderthal, where the biggest stick rules the hill. In European eyes, Mr. Bush sees himself as the arbiter of the world, either by divine mission or by sheer military superiority. Putting the UN under a “agree or become insignificant” ultimatum severely insulted the rest of the world.

In the past 12 years since the Gulf war, America has done almost nothing in diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq. International diplomacy is not exactly an American virtue. USA ignored Saddam’s massacre in Kurdistan, as well as the blood-filled repression of a Shiite rebellion in Basra. So much for America’s concern for the Iraqi people. Apart from surveillance of the no-fly-zones and the worldwide embargo (military actions), USA didn’t engage in any diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq in all those 12 years.

But since 9/11, Mr. Bush and the American population have been thirsty for revenge. The taliban regime was destroyed and an Afghan puppet president installed (he worked for the same oil company as Mr. Cheney). And as Osama bin Laden can’t be found, another target is needed to release the vengeance pressure. Saddam Hussein is a well-known enemy of America, although he refrained from any anti-American terrorism. He admittedly supported Palestinian extremists in suicide bombings against Israel, mainly to lure other Arabian states to support Iraq. So he becomes a natural target. America steps up its efforts to disarm Iraq. Now that the UN inspectors have produced increasingly valuable results and Hans Blix asks for 3 more months, America orders the inspectors out of Iraq and starts the war.

One indication for the lack of American will to peaceful disarmament is the fact that US government signed several contracts with US companies to rebuild Iraq, about 6 weeks ago. I repeat: There is no proof of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, there is no proof for mass destruction weapons, and yet America gives out contracts for rebuilding infrastructure of an Iraq after destruction by US troops. In Europe’s eyes, Mr. Bush lies to the whole world, and he lies to his own people.

Neither France nor Germany are America’s enemies. We’re friends and allies, but America treats us like emasculated vassals who are not supposed to contradict America. France is even more sensitive towards such highly undiplomatic and insulting behavior, so they play the biggest role in the opposition against the current American policy. Again, this is not the same as anti-Americanism, but definitely anti-Bush and anti-Rumsfeld.

Germany has no intent of throwing American troops out of Germany. On the contrary, we are guarding their military and civil installations in Germany with extra police forces, and for the first time in post-war history, German troops are deployed within Germany as additional support. America has been granted unrestricted use of their air bases (Rhein-Main and Ramstein are their most important military bases in Europe) and unrestricted rights for US Air Force to fly over Germany. That’s our prime duty for our American allies. It is not our duty to take part in any military conflict outside of the NATO-area. That’s against the NATO treaties.

For most Germans (and particularly for me personally), America has always been a cornerstone and stronghold of freedom, constitutional rights, and anti-fascism. Watching the recent developments within the USA under the Bush administration has risen considerable doubt to this. As an example, I’ll mention the undermining of constitutional rights by Patriot Acts I+II. This resembles many Germans of the Reichstag’s “Ermächtigungsgesetze” to grant special rights to Hitler and his Nazis. This and the increasing American disregard for other nations, as well as the nationwide flag-waving, smacks very much like emerging nationalism and fascism to us. I think most of the world is very much afraid of America’s further course in history. Fear raises enemies. Radical enemies.

Personally, I’m afraid for the symbol of freedom that America once represented. It’s gone, whatever the US propaganda machine says. And that’s not only my opinion, this concern has been voiced by many nations in the democratic world. This concern for worldwide peace is shared by the declining super-power Russia, and the emerging super-power China. America is not wise to ignore them.

PS: Just as I’m writing this, I hear about the first US cruise missiles being fired to Baghdad. Please remember this when the first American casualties get home in plastic bags. President Bush is personally responsible for every single dead American soldier in this senseless and unjustified war, just as much as Saddam Hussein!

 

[asutickler]

Re: Why most of Europe is against this war

Good post, Hal. 🙂 Granted, the average American is much less interested in international politics than are the average citizens of other nations. I have a few points of contention, however...

Saddam is strongly opposed to a fundamentalist Islamic state, and Al-Qaeda is anathema to him just like the Shiite mullahs.

Saddam's regime has demonstrated a CLEAR preference towards Sunni Muslims, and engages in the systematic repression, torture, and assassination of non-Sunni Muslims (and those of other faiths) within Iraq. Saddam doesn't want a fundamentalist state... but he hardly operates a secular regime.

In the past few months, great pressure was exerted on the CIA to provide some hard evidence for the existence of MDW, and for Saddam’s connections with the Al-Qaeda terrorists. Despite strong efforts, the CIA was unable to find anything. So Mr. Cheney, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Bush construed their own task force, consisting of Public Relation managers, marketing people, and specialists from the Psychological Warfare department, to “produce” a unique media campaign as a replacement for hard evidence. Its effect was tremendous: It raised the pro-war polls from a meager 30% to almost 70% of the American population, without any real information, just playing on the Americans’ fear and relating it to 9/11.

While presented as fact, this is likely groundless speculation on the part of whatever "news" source you obtained it from. Naturally, the administration engages in public relations campaigns, and attempts to sway the public to their opinion... However, the assertion that the Bush administration could somehow "trick" 40% of the American population on an issue so important as war is, for lack of a more stringent adjective, ludicrous. Furthermore, this statement plays directly to the European stereotype of today's American- as ignorant, violent, and unable to comprehend world affairs. Please.

The removal of Saddam will quite certainly have effects on the Middle East region (not sure if stabilizing or radicalizing), but it will not make American (or European) civilians safer. That’s the opinion of an estimated 70-80% of the European population who were not affected by the US propaganda campaign.

Should the removal of Saddam have a stabilizing effect on the Middle East, as you admitted it may, how will that "not make American (or European) civilians safer?" Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. We should know, since we supplied him with some of them. Iraq has even admitted to posessing WMD, but has claimed to have "lost" the evidence that these weapons were destroyed. Regardless of their ominous title, WMD are relatively easy to conceal, transport, and use. Just because Europe and the USA are outside of Scud range, that dosen't make us any safer from attack.

Most Europeans fear a tremendously increased wave of fundamental Islamic terrorism as a result of a war, and the glorification of Saddam Hussein as a “martyr”.

I thought you said that Saddam is opposed to Islamic fundamentalism? Why would fundamentalist Islamic terrorists target us for removing someone who is against them? Furthermore, does the German government make concessions to hostage-takers? If not, then why do they allow themselves to be held hostage by the threat of increased terrorism?

We feel that the only legitimate approach to the problem is diplomatic and economic pressure. Germany would certainly have approved UN resolution 1441 if it had been a member of the security counsel then. France and Russia have approved. But resolution 1441 doesn’t legitimate a military attack without further UN approval, it doesn’t cover a regime change by outside force, and it most certainly doesn’t justify Mr. Bush’s unilateral goal to “establish a new world order”.

Admittedly, the Bush administration is somewhat lacking when it comes to diplomatic matters. Their inability to unite the world against a bloodthirsty dictator is a shining example of this fact.

This is hardly the first time that the United States has acted without UN approval. Does anyone else remember the bombing campaign in Bosnia? We barely CONSULTED the UN on that occasion, and a similar stink ensued in Europe then. Now, however, our actions there are questioned by few... Giving the impression that European and World opinion is mercurial, at best.

In the past 12 years since the Gulf war, America has done almost nothing in diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq. International diplomacy is not exactly an American virtue. USA ignored Saddam’s massacre in Kurdistan, as well as the blood-filled repression of a Shiite rebellion in Basra. So much for America’s concern for the Iraqi people. Apart from surveillance of the no-fly-zones and the worldwide embargo (military actions), USA didn’t engage in any diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq in all those 12 years.

Oh, of course. Blame America on one hand for a lack of diplomacy on one hand, and then blame us for not intervening in Saddam's actions against his people on the other... What sort of intervention on our part do you think would have stopped Saddam from slaughtering the Kurds, or the Basra Shiites? A plea of "please, sir, stop killing your own people" is HARDLY going to sway the likes of Saddam Hussein.

The UN sanctions, by the way, are a prime reason for many European nations' opposition to the removal of Saddam Hussein. A great many European oil companies have reaped tremendous benefits from the "oil for food" provisions of the UN sanctions... The same sanctions, mind you, which are a virtual stranglehold on the Iraqi people- denying them even the most basic goods, such as food and medicine. If anyone can be accused of spilling blood for oil, it's EUROPE.

But since 9/11, Mr. Bush and the American population have been thirsty for revenge. The taliban regime was destroyed and an Afghan puppet president installed (he worked for the same oil company as Mr. Cheney).

Revenge? Hardly. We'd like justice for the 3000 people killed in the attacks on 9/11/01. We would also like to insure that such things NEVER happen again.

What would you have had us do in Afghanistan? Leave the Taliban in power, and beg them to turn Osama over peacefully? Crush the Taliban, and then withdraw, so some OTHER dictatorial force could take over?

Now that the UN inspectors have produced increasingly valuable results and Hans Blix asks for 3 more months, America orders the inspectors out of Iraq and starts the war.

Results? WHAT results?!? The locating of a few old chemical warheads? The destruction of a few Al Samoud missiles at a pace that would make a snail laugh? Hans Blix and the UN are a good match. Lots of talk, but very little in the way of results.

Furthermore, I'm sure the Iraqi people are absoultely THRILLED at Saddam's non-compliance. The removal of that maniacal dirt-bag, his sociopathic offspring, and their underlings means that they won't have to suffer through more scenes like THIS:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

For most Germans (and particularly for me personally), America has always been a cornerstone and stronghold of freedom, constitutional rights, and anti-fascism. Watching the recent developments within the USA under the Bush administration has risen considerable doubt to this. As an example, I’ll mention the undermining of constitutional rights by Patriot Acts I+II. This resembles many Germans of the Reichstag’s “Ermächtigungsgesetze” to grant special rights to Hitler and his Nazis. This and the increasing American disregard for other nations, as well as the nationwide flag-waving, smacks very much like emerging nationalism and fascism to us. I think most of the world is very much afraid of America’s further course in history. Fear raises enemies. Radical enemies.

In case Europe didn't notice, the world changed forever on 9/11/01. America realized that it is a target for terrorism, and took steps to rectify the situation. Do the Patriot acts go a bit too far? Perhaps. Time will tell... But to compare the Bush administration to your own former Nazi overlord is just a mite of a stretch, at this juncture.

If Europe is frightened by America's national pride... well, you'd think they'd have learned to live with it by now, after 200 years. 🙄

 

[Haltickling]

asutickler

Saddam's regime has demonstrated a CLEAR preference towards Sunni Muslims, and engages in the systematic repression, torture, and assassination of non-Sunni Muslims (and those of other faiths) within Iraq. Saddam doesn't want a fundamentalist state... but he hardly operates a secular regime.

Saddam represses ALL opponents of his regime, be it Sunni or Shiite. In fact about 60% of the Iraqi population are Shiites, and they are the ones who wish to install a mullah regime (with backing from Iran). Most of the Kurds are Sunni, and see what he’s done to them.

While presented as fact, this is likely groundless speculation on the part of whatever "news" source you obtained it from.

I obtained this from an interview of recently retired CIA senior staff on German TV. One of them was the agent who presented the CIA evaluations to Mr. Bush sr. We already had a discussion about the reliability of news from German TV, so I only repeat: German ARD and ZDF are fiercely independent from any political party, government interference, of commercial sponsors. There’s nothing like this on US TV.

Furthermore, this statement plays directly to the European stereotype of today's American- as ignorant, violent, and unable to comprehend world affairs. Please.

asu, have you ever asked yourself how Europeans got this impression?

Should the removal of Saddam have a stabilizing effect on the Middle East, as you admitted it may, how will that "not make American (or European) civilians safer?" Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. We should know, since we supplied him with some of them. Iraq has even admitted to posessing WMD, but has claimed to have "lost" the evidence that these weapons were destroyed. Regardless of their ominous title, WMD are relatively easy to conceal, transport, and use. Just because Europe and the USA are outside of Scud range, that dosen't make us any safer from attack.

While some of the countries around Iraq may become a bit more docile (at least politically), terrorism will be transported mainly to USA, and to Europe as well.

I thought you said that Saddam is opposed to Islamic fundamentalism? Why would fundamentalist Islamic terrorists target us for removing someone who is against them? Furthermore, does the German government make concessions to hostage-takers? If not, then why do they allow themselves to be held hostage by the threat of increased terrorism?

It works the other way round. A dead Saddam will be claimed by fundamentalists as a “martyr for the Islamic cause”, and terrorism against the archfiend USA will increase. More fanatic young men will support Islamic terrorism. The fundamentalists haven’t needed Iraq so far (practically all terrorists came from other Arabic countries), and they will find more support in the other Arabic countries after a war with Iraq.

Revenge? Hardly. We'd like justice for the 3000 people killed in the attacks on 9/11/01. We would also like to insure that such things NEVER happen again.

No sir. No other civilized nation mixes up revenge with justice as much as the US (maybe the only other example is Israel under the present Sharon government). “An eye for an eye” is an archaic concept of justice, and a thoroughly American one. And what’s so difficult to understand that Iraq PLAYED NO PART IN 9/11 ?

Furthermore, I'm sure the Iraqi people are absoultely THRILLED at Saddam's non-compliance. The removal of that maniacal dirt-bag, his sociopathic offspring, and their underlings means that they won't have to suffer through more scenes like THIS:

Do you really think they will celebrate and clap applause when US bombs destroy their homes?

In case Europe didn't notice, the world changed forever on 9/11/01. America realized that it is a target for terrorism, and took steps to rectify the situation. Do the Patriot acts go a bit too far? Perhaps. Time will tell... But to compare the Bush administration to your own former Nazi overlord is just a mite of a stretch, at this juncture.

No, asu. The world hasn’t changed half as much as you think, but the US certainly has. And if you read my post carefully, I didn’t compare Bush to Hitler, I compared the Reichstag’s “Ermächtigungsgesetze” to the Patriot Acts. Those changes to handling the constitutional rights are very unlikely to get removed by future US presidents, as they grant him more power. And such power is wide open to abuse.

The rest of your post is subject to personal political opinion (yours and mine), and can neither be proved not disproved. So I restricted myself to those points that can be explained from a European’s view.

It’s 2.40 am here now, and I will stop now. Again, I think my post reflects the thinking of a European majority as well as my own. I tried to explain them, knowing that nothing will change your mind. You won’t change mine.

 

[JoBelle]

I know I asked the questions, but I suppose in my naive and uneducated world view, I didn't expect such a respone. It seemed a a tad too bitter for my taste. Nearly every response was blatantly disapproving or at least tinged with a very poor view of my country.

Perhaps you might wonder why so many Americans think to thmeselves, "Why bother with Europe?" To us, your side of the planet often reeks of "Older is wiser, you silly American fools." We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

And yes, your smugness can stand supreme when the first American boys and girls die in combat. Won't you feel better when you can say, "I told you so."

I have to admit, after reading the first coupel of paragraphs, I found it difficult to digest the rest of your "information" as the tone was distasteful.

I hope we're all wrong. I hope you're wrong in your assessment of the outcome, and I hope my country is wrong is that we now view the rest of the world as "above getting our hands dirty."

Reckon I'm out of the converstion as well as the overall attitudes here is beyond control.

Jo

 

[red indian]

Say one thing and do another.........

........if the Russians are so set against the Iraq war why have they allowed their Antonov transport planes to be hired by the R.A.F. as part of the supply chain for British forces?